On Monday, September 2, 2019 8:10:10 PM CEST Ingo Molnar wrote: > * Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Saturday, August 31, 2019 4:43:44 PM CEST Jonathan Corbet wrote: > > > On Sat, 31 Aug 2019 15:41:16 +0200 > > > > > > Federico Vaga <federico.vaga@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > several CPU's and you want to use spinlocks you can potentially use > > > > > > > > -cheaper versions of the spinlocks. IFF you know that the spinlocks > > > > are > > > > +cheaper versions of the spinlocks. If you know that the spinlocks are > > > > > > > > never used in interrupt handlers, you can use the non-irq versions:: > > > I suspect that was not actually a typo; "iff" is a way for the > > > mathematically inclined to say "if and only if". > > > > > > jon > > > > I learned something new today :) > > > > I am not used to the mathematical English jargon. It make sense, but then > > I > > would replace it with "If and only if": for clarity. > > While it's used in a number of places and it's pretty common wording > overall in the literature, I agree that we should probably change this in > locking API user facing documentation. I would say not only in locking/. The argument is valid for the entire Documentation/. I wait for Jon's opinion before proceeding. > If you change it, please do it in both places it's used. > > Thanks, > > Ingo
